Cited by 105Family and Disability Support ResearchAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFamily Support in Illness

A National Mental Health Profile of Parents of Children with Medical Complexity

Bayer, Nathaniel D., Wang, Hongyue, Yu, Justin A., Kuo, Dennis Z., Halterman, Jill S., Li, Yue·2021·PEDIATRICS

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The mental health of parents of children with medical complexity (CMC) is poorly understood, yet it drives child and family health outcomes. For parents of CMC, compared with parents of noncomplex children with special health care needs (CSHCN) and children without special health care needs (non-CSHCN), we examined self-reported mental health, knowledge of community sources for help, and emotional support. METHODS Using parent-reported data from the combined 2016–2017 National Survey of Children’s Health, we divided the population into 3 groups: households with CMC, noncomplex CSHCN, and non-CSHCN. We compared these groups regarding the following: (1) parents’ risks for poor or fair mental health and knowledge of where to go for community help and (2) parent-reported sources of emotional support. RESULTS Of 63 955 588 parent-child dyads (weighted from a sample of 65 204), parents of CMC had greater adjusted odds of reporting poor or fair mental health compared with parents of noncomplex CSHCN (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–3.8) and non-CSHCN (aOR 4.6; 95% CI 2.5–8.6). Parents of CMC had greater odds of not knowing where to find community help compared with parents of noncomplex CSHCN (aOR 2.1; 95% CI 1.4–3.1) and non-CSHCN (aOR 2.9; 95% CI 2.0–4.3). However, parents of CMC were most likely to report receiving emotional support from health care providers and advocacy groups (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Among all parents, those with CMC were at the highest risk to report suboptimal mental health. They more often reported that they do not know where to find community help, but they did say that they receive emotional support from health care providers and advocacy groups. Future researchers should identify ways to directly support the emotional wellness of parents of CMC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2020-023358

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bayer, N. D., Wang, H., Yu, J. A., Kuo, D. Z., Halterman, J. S., & Li, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Venue
PEDIATRICS
Published
2021-08-01
Volume
148
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W3175497014
Cited by
103
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 2
FWCI
9.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Adolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
parental mental health, children with special health care needs, emotional support, healthcare provider support, advocacy organizations, National Survey of Children's Health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Cross-Sectional Studies, Family Health, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Mental Health, Parents, United States, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review